Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reject duplicated build steps in the outcome file #9286

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gilles-peskine-arm
Copy link
Contributor

@gilles-peskine-arm gilles-peskine-arm commented Jun 18, 2024

Resolves #9023

Status: work in progress, I want CI feedback

PR checklist

Please tick as appropriate and edit the reasons (e.g.: "backport: not needed because this is a new feature")

@gilles-peskine-arm gilles-peskine-arm added needs-work needs-ci Needs to pass CI tests component-test Test framework and CI scripts priority-high High priority - will be reviewed soon size-xs Estimated task size: extra small (a few hours at most) labels Jun 18, 2024
@tom-cosgrove-arm
Copy link
Contributor

Note "Reject duplicated build steps in the outcome file" seems very different from "use .s for assembly files" - presumably the latter could be a separate PR, making everything easier to review?

@gilles-peskine-arm
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tom-cosgrove-arm You're right, this turned into “fix issues in all.sh”, mostly so that I could have distinct configuration names. I'll break that unexpected part out.

@gilles-peskine-arm gilles-peskine-arm added the needs-preceding-pr Requires another PR to be merged first label Jun 20, 2024
@gilles-peskine-arm
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've split out the all.sh preliminaries into #9293

@gilles-peskine-arm gilles-peskine-arm force-pushed the outcome-check-repeated-configurations branch 2 times, most recently from 1073dd7 to 5c04140 Compare June 20, 2024 16:34
@gilles-peskine-arm gilles-peskine-arm force-pushed the outcome-check-repeated-configurations branch from 5c04140 to 13d5b99 Compare October 30, 2024 14:46
We no longer have two (only partially distinct) implementations of ECJ-PAKE
cipher suites in TLS, now that the non-MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO implementation
is being removed.

We may want to add this testing back in the future, but we'll have to use an
old Mbed TLS instead of a differently-built one.
Mbed-TLS#9740

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
@gilles-peskine-arm gilles-peskine-arm added size-s Estimated task size: small (~2d) and removed size-xs Estimated task size: extra small (a few hours at most) labels Oct 30, 2024
@gilles-peskine-arm gilles-peskine-arm force-pushed the outcome-check-repeated-configurations branch from 13d5b99 to ce25947 Compare October 30, 2024 14:54
Add an outcome line when all.sh calls make.

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
… builds

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Some versions on CMake (on some platforms?) run make (not $(MAKE)) under the
hood on targets named cmTC_* (CMake TryCompile). Ignore those calls.

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
This should make failures.csv on the CI be a complete list of failures
(although it will still have incomplete information on what has failed, if
what failed wasn't tracked individually).

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
component_test_tfm_config_no_p256m was not building sample programs, but
component_test_tfm_config_p256m_driver_accel_ec was. This is now flagged as
a discrepancy by outcome analysis.

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
This comes up in `psa_collect_statuses.py` and possibly (I didn't finish the
analysis) some CMake builds, which were reporting duplicate `make` steps.

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
As a debugging help, log the `make` command line in the outcome file. This
is not accurate if a command line argument contains some special
characters, but good enough to help debugging. Hopefully this will only be
temporary.

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
@gilles-peskine-arm gilles-peskine-arm force-pushed the outcome-check-repeated-configurations branch from ce25947 to b3940ab Compare October 30, 2024 18:00
When emitting a line for the outcome file for `make`, indicate if the target
is being built in a different directory or with a different makefile.

We don't currently do this explicitly with an ambiguous target name, but it
happens under the hood with older versions of CMake (observed with CMake
3.10.2, not with CMake 3.22.1).

Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component-test Test framework and CI scripts needs-ci Needs to pass CI tests needs-preceding-pr Requires another PR to be merged first needs-work priority-high High priority - will be reviewed soon size-s Estimated task size: small (~2d)
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Outcome analysis: complain about repeated configuration name
2 participants